Global Struggle: War no more

Forget the war on terror. Now the Bush administration has a new description: "A global struggle against violent extremism."

That's a mouthful. But the issue is not just semantics; it will help define what resources ought to be used in that "struggle."

The U.S. government does not have a rich history of success when it calls one of its programs a "war" unless it involves a real military operation. We've had the "war on hunger," "war on poverty," "war on crime," "war on obesity" and our all-time least-successful, "war on drugs."

Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers said this week that the military "objected to the use of the term 'war on terrorism' before, because if you call it a war, then you think of people in uniform as being the solution."

The solution has to involve more national resources than just the military. As Myers put it, that includes solutions that are "more diplomatic, more economic, more political than ... military." (We would add to that list: a primary role for global and local law-enforcement agencies.)

A war on terror? Nah. And, while "a global struggle against violent extremism" might not roll off the tongue, at least it recognizes reality.